[sennight]

What you are asking for is already widely available: network television. I don't see how it is a good thing that Google has adopted more and more of the negative aspects of the old system, but they certainly have been busy doing so for the last few years.

You know a very good way to control what is and is not part of the public discourse? Allow only those with a lot to lose the privilege of speaking. Those creators with skin in the game will think twice about saying something that the "platform" doesn't like, and it isn't even censorship - it is self imposed, so nobody can complain about it.

[PragmaticPulp]

That’s an exaggeration. YouTube is still far more accessible than network television even if brand new accounts aren’t able to livestream to huge audiences.

Limiting new accounts is a common, and often necessary, feature in most internet platforms. Even HN will limit how fast new accounts can post and highlights new users in green.

If HN allowed new users to sign up and immediately post hundreds of comments or links, it would be inundated with spam and abuse. Likewise, YouTube requires new accounts to demonstrate some actual traction before they’re allowed to livestream to huge audiences because the feature was being used for abuse.

[raxxorrax]

This really grind my gears too. You want carefully curated content? I like that too from time to time and it is more or less ubiquitously available. You don't have to destroy every platform that might diverge here.

Youtube is long gone from non-commercial use and for me the platform is a lot less interesting, although there still is good stuff on it. But so many people want to go back to church. Every measure is a punch in the wherever curiosity is situated in the body...

[rwmj]

You realise that you can set up your own web server and livestream as much as you like (and can afford) from that to as many people as you want? Youtube doesn't owe you free bandwidth.